Pages

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Congress & Obama in cahoots with the insurance companies

I've been listening to the news about the latest blah-blah in Congress and from the White House about the supposed health care "reform" they plan to foist on the public. "We'll have a great new plan by July!" gushes Speaker Pelosi. "Coverage for everyone!" promises Obama.

Well, who gives a flying fuck, huh, really?

"Congressional leaders on health care have taken single payer off the table as politically impractical." Um, yeah, the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry might not fund their campaigns next time. "Coverage" and "insurance plans" just arent' going to cut it. The proposals seem to be headed straight to a private-profit, public-cost type of plan. Single-payer advocates have to disrupt the hearings to even get the phrase mentioned in Baucus' hearing rooms, although that isn't helping it get addressed, exactly.

The Administration apparently learned its lesson from the Clinton experience, which hammered out its bill behind closed doors, with little to no industry input. By bringing the insurance and hospital executives to the table, it makes it that much harder for them to derail the effort altogether. At a White House press conference, Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters: "Let's not minimize the impact of the difference between being at the table working constructively for comprehensive health-care reform that cuts costs for the American people, vs. campaign-style ads to derail it. I think today represents, in many ways, a big shift in the ground underneath people that have been working on health-care reform for decades."

So really, it's quite clear that they JUST DON'T CARE. Obama might possibly care, but he's not listening to the science, or the facts, or the people who could tell him the facts. Nope. It's 'politically inexpedient.'

This is really, really, foul. Senator Baucus knows there's a problem, but if it's the crisis he says it is, why isn't he willing to even consider a possible solution, one that is working in almost every other industrialized nation? Why is he supporting a model like Massachusetts' plan, which, as Neil Davis points out in his upcoming Dose of Reality, is failing miserably?